Page 18 of 27 [ 424 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 ... 27  Next

Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,481
Location: Aux Arcs

29 Jan 2022, 9:20 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
You might be thinking of the Kennedy family, they did make their money from bootlegging and had shady connections to the underworld, AFAIK the Trump family were saloon keepers who may have dealt with prostitutes and other questionable business from time to time but weren't what you'd call organized crime. The rumors around Trump and his father had more to do with possible mob connections with things like construction work and services, like maybe they were paying kickbacks or working some kind of scheme, but never that they were actually in a crime family or anything like that.

Now I remember, it was at a gangster museum in a place called Hot Springs. They also mentioned the Kennedys. Trump was only mentioned verbally. As I've long felt that most politicians are more or less gangsters anyway, the information didn't seem particularly surprising to me, and I didn't retain much detail. I do remember that during prohibition there was a loophole by which if you were wealthy enough to pay a willing doctor, you could get a note entitling you to all the spirits you wanted as necessary for "medicinal purposes." But I digress.

Mobsters loved Hot Springs.They came from all over to relax.It was considered neutral territory so they all just chilled out, soaked in the hot water at the bath houses,got massages and gambled.
It was a gangsters paradise.
https://www.hotsprings.org/pages/history/


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


userafw
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 7
Location: Federal Way, WA

30 Jan 2022, 9:22 am

Manchin has not helped the populist nor progressive side: many Democrats consider him a DINO - Democrat in name only. If he wasn't critical to retaining the Senate majority, he probably wouldve been kicked out of the Dems some time ago. However, seems like he votes with the GOP 90% of the time, which nullifies the "majority".

Trump - I have nothing to say but bad things about him. I really hoped when he first got elected that he would be a decent president who actually cared about the country. Instead, he polarized and divided the country, set up concentration camps around the borders, and encouraged race discrimination, ethnic discrimination, and LGBTQ discrimination, and discrimination against women, along with reduced opportunities and pay for women, has increased.

I get it, the Christian right thinks the Bible tells them to hate LGBTQs (including a certain church that likes to picket funerals). They also think the Bible tells them that the unborn have all the rights that babies who were born to. Some Christians also believe the Bible tells them a woman's place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. (Then there are also the few who believe God tells them to throw snakes at each other, but fortunately, those are oddities even in the Christian religion). However, I could quote a number of Bible verses that show just the opposite regarding the unborn, and Jesus never told us to kill born people (like immigrants) that we do not like, nor separate toddlers from their parents with no caregivers.

Trump acts like he wants to start a civil war, and some people in Southern states would like to see a do-over of the first civil war so they don't have to treat people they don't like as persons. They are already restricting voter rights: those who are disabled and homebound cannot vote by mail. Even districts with low populations in rural areas are not even allowed to vote by mail. Districts with large populations that lean left are seeing their polling places closed by the conservative right, and gerrymandering keeps the current party in power.

However, war today would be very different than war in the 1860s. War is not the same as duels. In Gettysburg, there were literally so many bullets on the field that some of them actually fused together when the two bullets hit each other. Today, war here would be more like on the fields of Vietnam. Looting would be tame compared to war. With looting, there might actually be something of value left. In war, the whole place gets burned to the ground. In war, the enemies try to destroy the other enemy and everything the other enemy has.

The right can claim about "dead people" voting: but my MOM, who is very much still alive, was reported dead when my dad died. Probably because they filed a joint return. So now she has to PROVE that she is still alive. So does that mean she should not be able to vote, even if she shows up in person at the polling place with a driver's license?



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

30 Jan 2022, 10:03 pm

userafw wrote:
Manchin has not helped the populist nor progressive side: many Democrats consider him a DINO - Democrat in name only. If he wasn't critical to retaining the Senate majority, he probably wouldve been kicked out of the Dems some time ago. However, seems like he votes with the GOP 90% of the time, which nullifies the "majority".


Without Manchin, McConnell would still be Majority Leader, and the Democrats would be getting nothing, including whoever Biden picks for the Supreme Court.

Also, you've had an account for over 8 years and only just decided to start posting today?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

31 Jan 2022, 2:59 am

userafw wrote:
Manchin has not helped the populist nor progressive side: many Democrats consider him a DINO - Democrat in name only. If he wasn't critical to retaining the Senate majority, he probably wouldve been kicked out of the Dems some time ago. However, seems like he votes with the GOP 90% of the time, which nullifies the "majority".

Trump - I have nothing to say but bad things about him. I really hoped when he first got elected that he would be a decent president who actually cared about the country. Instead, he polarized and divided the country, set up concentration camps around the borders, and encouraged race discrimination, ethnic discrimination, and LGBTQ discrimination, and discrimination against women, along with reduced opportunities and pay for women, has increased.

I get it, the Christian right thinks the Bible tells them to hate LGBTQs (including a certain church that likes to picket funerals). They also think the Bible tells them that the unborn have all the rights that babies who were born to. Some Christians also believe the Bible tells them a woman's place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. (Then there are also the few who believe God tells them to throw snakes at each other, but fortunately, those are oddities even in the Christian religion). However, I could quote a number of Bible verses that show just the opposite regarding the unborn, and Jesus never told us to kill born people (like immigrants) that we do not like, nor separate toddlers from their parents with no caregivers.

Trump acts like he wants to start a civil war, and some people in Southern states would like to see a do-over of the first civil war so they don't have to treat people they don't like as persons. They are already restricting voter rights: those who are disabled and homebound cannot vote by mail. Even districts with low populations in rural areas are not even allowed to vote by mail. Districts with large populations that lean left are seeing their polling places closed by the conservative right, and gerrymandering keeps the current party in power.

However, war today would be very different than war in the 1860s. War is not the same as duels. In Gettysburg, there were literally so many bullets on the field that some of them actually fused together when the two bullets hit each other. Today, war here would be more like on the fields of Vietnam. Looting would be tame compared to war. With looting, there might actually be something of value left. In war, the whole place gets burned to the ground. In war, the enemies try to destroy the other enemy and everything the other enemy has.

The right can claim about "dead people" voting: but my MOM, who is very much still alive, was reported dead when my dad died. Probably because they filed a joint return. So now she has to PROVE that she is still alive. So does that mean she should not be able to vote, even if she shows up in person at the polling place with a driver's license?


Why do the people in the more blue states care if the Southern States restrict voting? I was under the impression that liberals hate the voting system, since they seem to riot at the idea of Trump getting in. So why do they care about if people in South restrict themselves? Isn't that good for the blue states, if they want their to be less votes in the Southern states?



NoClearMind53
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 369

31 Jan 2022, 6:01 am

Southern states are not purely conservative. There are congressional districts that can go either way in every state. A true democracy should have uniform standards. It is grossly unfair that people in some urban areas (who generally don’t vote for the GOP) are forced to wait for hours in lines while people in suburbs only have to wait 20 minutes.



CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 116,853
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love

31 Jan 2022, 6:20 am

Trump has done more for America in one month, than Biden has done for America in one year.


_________________
The Family Enigma


carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,933

31 Jan 2022, 9:24 am

I believe Trump will be older than Biden was in 2020 at the next election so that as well as his controversial status means there is no way he will be endorsed by the rep party.

He may however endorse one of his candidates for potential selection

Like him or hate him he’s political history and that’s that.


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,899
Location: Long Island, New York

31 Jan 2022, 6:42 pm

carlos55 wrote:
I believe Trump will be older than Biden was in 2020 at the next election so that as well as his controversial status means there is no way he will be endorsed by the rep party.

He may however endorse one of his candidates for potential selection

Like him or hate him he’s political history and that’s that.

It is not a matter of the party endorsing him. Republican voters decide that and they really like him
Poll: Trump leads 2024 Republican field with DeSantis in distant second
Quote:
Former President Trump dominates the field of potential contenders for the 2024 Republican presidential nod, but Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is an early favorite for the nomination in the event that Trump doesn’t run again, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll shared exclusively with The Hill.

In a hypothetical eight-person GOP presidential primary, Trump holds a clear edge, garnering 57 percent support among Republican voters. DeSantis and former Vice President Mike Pence are nearly deadlocked at 12 percent and 11 percent, respectively. No other would-be candidate tested in the poll registers double-digit support.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

31 Jan 2022, 10:36 pm

ironpony wrote:
userafw wrote:
Manchin has not helped the populist nor progressive side: many Democrats consider him a DINO - Democrat in name only. If he wasn't critical to retaining the Senate majority, he probably wouldve been kicked out of the Dems some time ago. However, seems like he votes with the GOP 90% of the time, which nullifies the "majority".

Trump - I have nothing to say but bad things about him. I really hoped when he first got elected that he would be a decent president who actually cared about the country. Instead, he polarized and divided the country, set up concentration camps around the borders, and encouraged race discrimination, ethnic discrimination, and LGBTQ discrimination, and discrimination against women, along with reduced opportunities and pay for women, has increased.

I get it, the Christian right thinks the Bible tells them to hate LGBTQs (including a certain church that likes to picket funerals). They also think the Bible tells them that the unborn have all the rights that babies who were born to. Some Christians also believe the Bible tells them a woman's place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. (Then there are also the few who believe God tells them to throw snakes at each other, but fortunately, those are oddities even in the Christian religion). However, I could quote a number of Bible verses that show just the opposite regarding the unborn, and Jesus never told us to kill born people (like immigrants) that we do not like, nor separate toddlers from their parents with no caregivers.

Trump acts like he wants to start a civil war, and some people in Southern states would like to see a do-over of the first civil war so they don't have to treat people they don't like as persons. They are already restricting voter rights: those who are disabled and homebound cannot vote by mail. Even districts with low populations in rural areas are not even allowed to vote by mail. Districts with large populations that lean left are seeing their polling places closed by the conservative right, and gerrymandering keeps the current party in power.

However, war today would be very different than war in the 1860s. War is not the same as duels. In Gettysburg, there were literally so many bullets on the field that some of them actually fused together when the two bullets hit each other. Today, war here would be more like on the fields of Vietnam. Looting would be tame compared to war. With looting, there might actually be something of value left. In war, the whole place gets burned to the ground. In war, the enemies try to destroy the other enemy and everything the other enemy has.

The right can claim about "dead people" voting: but my MOM, who is very much still alive, was reported dead when my dad died. Probably because they filed a joint return. So now she has to PROVE that she is still alive. So does that mean she should not be able to vote, even if she shows up in person at the polling place with a driver's license?


Why do the people in the more blue states care if the Southern States restrict voting? I was under the impression that liberals hate the voting system, since they seem to riot at the idea of Trump getting in. So why do they care about if people in South restrict themselves? Isn't that good for the blue states, if they want their to be less votes in the Southern states?


Pragmatically, the voting restrictions tend to be designed to keep minorities and liberals from the polls. When it comes to national elections, that changes the odds of who wins and which party will have control and the ability to act on its agenda. The red states can control the senate and often the house by blocking blue votes in their own states despite whatever percentage of viewpoints those voters actually represent. We all live by the laws and with the budgets passed at the federal level, so I would suggest we should all care.

Idealistically, voting restrictions run against the constitution. "All created equal." "One man, one vote."

The US Senate is quite distorted at the moment, with the liberal wing representing 40 million more votes than the conservative wing. The red states want to deepen that incongruity applying voting restrictions. It's a pretty brilliant game, if it wasn't so contrary to the goals of Democracy.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

01 Feb 2022, 12:41 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
ironpony wrote:
userafw wrote:
Manchin has not helped the populist nor progressive side: many Democrats consider him a DINO - Democrat in name only. If he wasn't critical to retaining the Senate majority, he probably wouldve been kicked out of the Dems some time ago. However, seems like he votes with the GOP 90% of the time, which nullifies the "majority".

Trump - I have nothing to say but bad things about him. I really hoped when he first got elected that he would be a decent president who actually cared about the country. Instead, he polarized and divided the country, set up concentration camps around the borders, and encouraged race discrimination, ethnic discrimination, and LGBTQ discrimination, and discrimination against women, along with reduced opportunities and pay for women, has increased.

I get it, the Christian right thinks the Bible tells them to hate LGBTQs (including a certain church that likes to picket funerals). They also think the Bible tells them that the unborn have all the rights that babies who were born to. Some Christians also believe the Bible tells them a woman's place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. (Then there are also the few who believe God tells them to throw snakes at each other, but fortunately, those are oddities even in the Christian religion). However, I could quote a number of Bible verses that show just the opposite regarding the unborn, and Jesus never told us to kill born people (like immigrants) that we do not like, nor separate toddlers from their parents with no caregivers.

Trump acts like he wants to start a civil war, and some people in Southern states would like to see a do-over of the first civil war so they don't have to treat people they don't like as persons. They are already restricting voter rights: those who are disabled and homebound cannot vote by mail. Even districts with low populations in rural areas are not even allowed to vote by mail. Districts with large populations that lean left are seeing their polling places closed by the conservative right, and gerrymandering keeps the current party in power.

However, war today would be very different than war in the 1860s. War is not the same as duels. In Gettysburg, there were literally so many bullets on the field that some of them actually fused together when the two bullets hit each other. Today, war here would be more like on the fields of Vietnam. Looting would be tame compared to war. With looting, there might actually be something of value left. In war, the whole place gets burned to the ground. In war, the enemies try to destroy the other enemy and everything the other enemy has.

The right can claim about "dead people" voting: but my MOM, who is very much still alive, was reported dead when my dad died. Probably because they filed a joint return. So now she has to PROVE that she is still alive. So does that mean she should not be able to vote, even if she shows up in person at the polling place with a driver's license?


Why do the people in the more blue states care if the Southern States restrict voting? I was under the impression that liberals hate the voting system, since they seem to riot at the idea of Trump getting in. So why do they care about if people in South restrict themselves? Isn't that good for the blue states, if they want their to be less votes in the Southern states?




Pragmatically, the voting restrictions tend to be designed to keep minorities and liberals from the polls. When it comes to national elections, that changes the odds of who wins and which party will have control and the ability to act on its agenda. The red states can control the senate and often the house by blocking blue votes in their own states despite whatever percentage of viewpoints those voters actually represent. We all live by the laws and with the budgets passed at the federal level, so I would suggest we should all care.

Idealistically, voting restrictions run against the constitution. "All created equal." "One man, one vote."

The US Senate is quite distorted at the moment, with the liberal wing representing 40 million more votes than the conservative wing. The red states want to deepen that incongruity applying voting restrictions. It's a pretty brilliant game, if it wasn't so contrary to the goals of Democracy.


But when you say that they keep liberals from voting, how do the people know who are liberal and who are not? It's not like it says if you are liberal or conservative on your ID, so can they tell?



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

01 Feb 2022, 1:51 am

ironpony wrote:

But when you say that they keep liberals from voting, how do the people know who are liberal and who are not? It's not like it says if you are liberal or conservative on your ID, so can they tell?


It’s about statistics, demographics, and odds. If a county has been voting liberal, maybe they will reduce the number of available polling places so that lines are longer there. If people without transportation are more likely to vote Democratic, then reduce mail in voting and make sure the polling places are further from home. Since many Indian reservations don’t have street addresses, they can keep Indians from voting by requiring an ID that includes a street address. It’s very subtle but quite effective.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,960

01 Feb 2022, 12:47 pm

^
Yes I think that's how it works. And as you say, so much for politicians' respect for the will of the people. And how hypocritical of the last president to say he was cheated out of a second term, though I'm not saying he's the only hypocrite in politics.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

01 Feb 2022, 7:58 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
ironpony wrote:

But when you say that they keep liberals from voting, how do the people know who are liberal and who are not? It's not like it says if you are liberal or conservative on your ID, so can they tell?


It’s about statistics, demographics, and odds. If a county has been voting liberal, maybe they will reduce the number of available polling places so that lines are longer there. If people without transportation are more likely to vote Democratic, then reduce mail in voting and make sure the polling places are further from home. Since many Indian reservations don’t have street addresses, they can keep Indians from voting by requiring an ID that includes a street address. It’s very subtle but quite effective.


But if they do this to cut down on liberal votes, they will also be cutting down on conservative votes as well, since they are limiting access to both, without knowing who is who. How will they know they will get more conversative votes therefore, if they are cutting off access to both? Just hope that they will?



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,960

01 Feb 2022, 9:06 pm

ironpony wrote:
But if they do this to cut down on liberal votes, they will also be cutting down on conservative votes as well, since they are limiting access to both, without knowing who is who. How will they know they will get more conversative votes therefore, if they are cutting off access to both? Just hope that they will?

They know that in the places where they restrict voting there are more people support the left than the right. Poverty and support for the left tend to go together. True, they'll stop some right-wingers voting too, but not so many.

The first example of this kind of thing I noticed was decades ago when the Tories in the UK wanted to have the general election during what was called "the works weeks," which was a fortnight in summer when the working class would traditionally take their vacations, because the factories in which they worked would make them go to work apart from those 2 weeks. Postal ballots for able-bodied people didn't really happen in those days, so they'd have been out of town and therefore unable to vote. Of course some of the working class were Tory supporters, but more of them were Labour supporters, so the Tories would have gained. The Tories were called out for it, but I can't remember whether they backed down or not.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

02 Feb 2022, 12:57 am

ToughDiamond wrote:
ironpony wrote:
But if they do this to cut down on liberal votes, they will also be cutting down on conservative votes as well, since they are limiting access to both, without knowing who is who. How will they know they will get more conversative votes therefore, if they are cutting off access to both? Just hope that they will?

They know that in the places where they restrict voting there are more people support the left than the right. Poverty and support for the left tend to go together. True, they'll stop some right-wingers voting too, but not so many.

The first example of this kind of thing I noticed was decades ago when the Tories in the UK wanted to have the general election during what was called "the works weeks," which was a fortnight in summer when the working class would traditionally take their vacations, because the factories in which they worked would make them go to work apart from those 2 weeks. Postal ballots for able-bodied people didn't really happen in those days, so they'd have been out of town and therefore unable to vote. Of course some of the working class were Tory supporters, but more of them were Labour supporters, so the Tories would have gained. The Tories were called out for it, but I can't remember whether they backed down or not.


Oh okay that makes sense, thanks. But why do democrats care if the voting system is manipulated, since they themselves do not seem to like the voting system anyway?



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,960

02 Feb 2022, 1:32 am

^
Whatever a party thinks of the current electoral system, they know it's the one that's in force and they want it to get them elected. I don't think there's anything more important to a politician than getting into power and staying in power.